Sheiko Forum

General Powerlifting => Universal Topics => Topic started by: Robert Frederick on April 28, 2014, 02:23:40 PM

Title: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on April 28, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
Relative Intensity

The relative intensity (RI) is the percentage of the average weight of the bar compared to the one repetition maximum (1RM) of an exercise. This parameter characterizes the relative degree of stress the body experiences when performing exercises, regardless of body weight, skill, and strength of the athlete.

Boris analyzed the training load of world champions (n=38) from 1993 to 2013 and found that the greatest increase in strength was achieved with an average relative intensity of 69.5 - 72%. However, this does not mean that all work should be done at 70% of maximum. In training sessions, an athlete trains with weights in the range of 50-90%.

There are several ways to achieve an average intensity in this range. For example:

Version 1

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      2
90      2      3

Lifts = 24
Relative Intensity = 71.5%

Version 2

%RM      Reps      Sets
55      5      1
65      4      1
75      3      1
85      2      4

Lifts = 20
Relative Intensity = 72.0%

Version 3

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      5

Lifts = 27
Relative Intensity = 70.4%

Version 4

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      5      1
70      5      1
75      4      5

Lifts = 35
Relative Intensity = 68.6%

Version 5

%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      2
85      2      3
80      3      2

Lifts = 30
Relative Intensity = 72.3%
 
When planning the load in the preparatory period for elite athletes Boris uses stressful loads once every 10 - 14 days:

Squats

Option 1: Pyramid Method
%RM      Reps            Sets
50       5            1
60      5            1
70      3,5,7,9,8,6,4*       1,1,1,1,1,1,1

*athlete does 3 reps, rests, then 5 reps, 7 and so on
   
Lifts = 52
Relative intensity = 67.1%

Option 2: Ragged Method
%RM      Reps            Sets
50      5            1
60      5            1
70      3,7,5,8,4,9,6      1,1,1,1,1,1,1

Lifts = 52
Relative intensity = 67.1%

In the first and second embodiments, both have the same number of lifts and the same relative intensity. The difference is in the ordering of the sets with 70% of 1RM.

Athletes who performed these two methods noted that the “Ragged Method" was better tolerated than the “Pyramid Method”.

Mid-level athletes perform squats using the preceding methods with a weight of 65% of 1RM.

Bench Press

Option 1: Average Pyramid
%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      5      1
70      4      1
75      3      1
80      2      2
85      1      2
75      3      1
65      5      1
55      7      1

Lifts = 38
Relative intensity = 65.3%

Option 2: Mega Pyramid
%RM      Reps      Sets
50      7      1
60      6      1
70      5      1
75      4      1
80      3      1
85      2      2
80      3      1
75      4      1
70      5      1
65      6      1
60      7      1
55      8      1
50      9      1

Lifts  = 71
Relative intensity = 63.8%

Option 3:
%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      2
85      2      3
80      2      3

Lifts = 30
Relative intensity = 72.3%

Option 4:
%RM      Reps      Sets
50      6      1
60      5      1
70      4      1
80      3      2
85      2      2
80      3      1
75      4      1
65      5      1
55      6      1

Lifts = 43
Relative intensity = 67.3%


Option 5: Short, Intense Pyramid
%RM      Reps      Sets
50      5      1
60      4      1
70      3      1
80      3      1
85      2      2
90      1      2
85      2      2

Lifts = 25
Relative intensity = 72.0%

Intensity Zones

Maximum strength increases are achieved with loads between 91-100%. Little skeletal muscle hypertrophy occurs and strength growth is primarily the result of the consolidation of the neuromuscular system. The amount of strength improvement decreases with decreasing intensity: however, the growth of muscle mass increases. Note: A discussion of the mechanisms here is outside the scope of this post.

So the training of beginners should promote, first and foremost, an increase in muscle mass. This is because the weight and height data do not correspond with the weight class they are in. For example, at 173cm, a 16-17 year old beginner might weigh 75kg or less. At this height he should be in the 83-93kg weight class. This is one reason why beginners should emphasize lower intensity zones. It will also help them reduce the risk of injury and improve learning the technique of the competitive exercises.

At a height of 173cm, the 16-17 year old beginner at 75kg has a weight-height ratio of 434g/cm (versus 520g/cm for a 90kg lifter at the same height); consequently, the muscle mass per centimeter will be less than needed. This is the reason why the lifter should switch to “his” weight class.

Optimal Heights and Weights

Height     Weight     Height     Weight     
145+/-3cm52kg168+/-2cm82.5kg
149+/-3cm56kg171+/-2cm90kg
155+/-2.5cm60kg174.5+/-2cm100kg
160+/-2cm67.5kg177.5+/-2cm110kg
164+/-2cm75kg186+/-6cm110+kg
*Target weights should be at the top of a weight class

All things being equal (the intensity of loading, the work scheme, etc.), an increase in the volume of loading contributes to an increase in a lifter’s muscle mass. Therefore, the lifter’s height/weight data is an important factor for planning the loading. When it is necessary to increase muscle mass the volume of loading is at a maximum. As body weight rises to near the limit of his weight class a greater emphasis is placed on higher intensity zones.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: tóth géza on June 06, 2014, 09:41:15 PM
I have a question.

 The intensity is same, at squat, at dedlift and at  benchpress?

 Because at squat and dedlift you work weight and your mass, at benchpress you move only the weight.

thanks
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: tóth géza on June 06, 2014, 10:00:23 PM
In the proffesional competiter what intensity zone must train?

And what changes in the intensity the reccurent method?

for  example: bench press 55% 5x1, 65 % 4x1, 75% 3x1, 85% 2x4; squat and bench press: 50% 3x1, 60% 3x1, 70% 3x1, 80% 2x4

thanks
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: DOMS on June 07, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
Great read. Now what fat percent is recommended/required/optimal at these weight recommendation?
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on June 07, 2014, 01:17:19 PM
Great read. Now what fat percent is recommended/required/optimal at these weight recommendation?

I think that's individualized. Whatever gives you the best total. I've seen the best results personally around 14%. I've been down to 8% but my lifts went down too. 14% also happens to be where I fall if I just eat whatever I want. That could be coincidental or maybe not.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Maurizio on June 07, 2014, 08:29:54 PM
complete rests between the series are recomended?
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: DOMS on June 07, 2014, 09:01:26 PM
Great read. Now what fat percent is recommended/required/optimal at these weight recommendation?

I think that's individualized. Whatever gives you the best total. I've seen the best results personally around 14%. I've been down to 8% but my lifts went down too. 14% also happens to be where I fall if I just eat whatever I want. That could be coincidental or maybe not.

My body gets me to 20% if i eat whatever i want. Below 15% year round would be a nice change of pace. Thanks for the reply.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Boris Sheiko on June 13, 2014, 04:59:24 PM
I have a question.

 The intensity is same, at squat, at dedlift and at  benchpress?

 Because at squat and dedlift you work weight and your mass, at benchpress you move only the weight.

thanks

I don’t take it into account. It doesn’t influence intensity in the squat, bench press, or deadlift.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: tóth géza on June 13, 2014, 08:35:10 PM
Thank you!
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: patrick on July 30, 2014, 05:54:10 AM
Is there a way to quantify the difference between, say, 3 sets of 5 reps at a given intensity vs. 5x3? 3x5 will obviously feel harder, but is there a significant difference in training effect?
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on July 30, 2014, 12:29:41 PM
Is there a way to quantify the difference between, say, 3 sets of 5 reps at a given intensity vs. 5x3? 3x5 will obviously feel harder, but is there a significant difference in training effect?

3 sets of 5 reps will take longer to recover from and not just between sets but also between workouts. If you want to quantify it you could look at the lactate build up inside the muscles. You get a linear increase in lactate with each rep. But if you were to look at ammonia build up you get a curvilinear response. If you stay below half the number of a certain rep max, i.e. 3 reps at 8RM, then there is no significant increase in ammonia. That means you can come back and do it again fairly soon.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: BuccioniPL on July 30, 2014, 07:22:19 PM
Is there a way to quantify the difference between, say, 3 sets of 5 reps at a given intensity vs. 5x3? 3x5 will obviously feel harder, but is there a significant difference in training effect?

3 sets of 5 reps will take longer to recover from and not just between sets but also between workouts. If you want to quantify it you could look at the lactate build up inside the muscles. You get a linear increase in lactate with each rep. But if you were to look at ammonia build up you get a curvilinear response. If you stay below half the number of a certain rep max, i.e. 3 reps at 8RM, then there is no significant increase in ammonia. That means you can come back and do it again fairly soon.

Quite interesting comment! I did not know this different relation ammonia - reps, lactate -reps
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Sheiko37 on August 29, 2014, 06:11:25 AM
I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM      Reps      Sets
90      1      5
60      10    3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on August 29, 2014, 10:57:40 AM
I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM      Reps      Sets
90      1      5
60      10    3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.

It is the result and not the goal.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: TheDane on November 25, 2014, 12:40:29 PM
The concept of relative intensity and the multible ways the program it makes perfectly good sense. However, how should one program the top intensity from day to day and week to week, relative to NL?

To me, it would make sense to program the higher intensities in weeks containing the lower NL and the lower intensities at weeks containing higher NL. What is coach Sheiko's recommendation?
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on November 25, 2014, 06:21:26 PM
The concept of relative intensity and the multible ways the program it makes perfectly good sense. However, how should one program the top intensity from day to day and week to week, relative to NL?

To me, it would make sense to program the higher intensities in weeks containing the lower NL and the lower intensities at weeks containing higher NL. What is coach Sheiko's recommendation?


That's the general idea.

(http://i.imgur.com/6UTRhLg.png)
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: TheDane on November 26, 2014, 06:03:12 PM
Okay thanks you - i guess the specifik details are a matter of trial and error or perhabs reading Sheikos book in due time.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on November 26, 2014, 06:24:48 PM
You see the weekly alternation of emphasis on either volume or intensity in the chart above while the other gets a break. That's the basic idea. You can't just keep doing the same thing all the time. At the same time though you need a stable stimulus, which presents a bit of a paradox: the simultaneous need for a variable yet stable stimulus. It gets a bit complicated to apply so I just let Boris work it all out.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: TheDane on November 27, 2014, 01:08:12 PM
Of course, it makes perfectly good sense that intensity has to fit the number of lifts and the other way around to apply sufficient stimulus without overreaching. Does Coach Sheiko have or wish to publish some guidelines on what level of intensity is appropriate to use with any given NL?

The concept of average intensity has a great appeal to me, and I understand the basic idea of periodization of NL and intensity during a cykle. However, I'm still curious about how what maximum intensity is appropriate for, lets say the squat, during a low NL/higher intensity, high NL/lower intensity week during a preparatory and competition cycle.

How would you handle f.eks 4 squatsessions/week(2xcompetition squat + 2xvariation) with regards to NL and intensity for either high NL/lower intensity or lower NL/higer intensity?

I'm sorry if it's too specific.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on November 27, 2014, 02:27:13 PM
We use average weight lifted not average intensity. One is a measure of absolute stress and the other is relative stress. Average weight lifted has the highest correlation with your total so that is the more interesting number. Of course if your maxes are all 100 then absolute = relative.

Take a look at this.

http://sheiko-program.ru/forum/index.php?topic=311.msg1515#msg1515 (http://sheiko-program.ru/forum/index.php?topic=311.msg1515#msg1515)

You really can't say with certainty what is appropriate for any one person. You can give suggestions and start from there. Then you see how things go and adjust accordingly.

As a starting point for your squat example you could make one session intense and the other volumetric. Do the variations with control. So not too heavy and not too much volume.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: danjh2705 on December 18, 2014, 01:04:44 PM
Just a quick question on the Height-weight ratio chart listed.

I realize that this serves as a long term goal, but can I assume that this is for "natural" athletes?
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Robert Frederick on December 18, 2014, 02:04:25 PM
Just a quick question on the Height-weight ratio chart listed.

I realize that this serves as a long term goal, but can I assume that this is for "natural" athletes?


Yes, natural.

Check out this calculator:
http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html (http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html)

The heights-weights shouldn't be too far off. I plugged in 13% fat and mine was right on.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: danjh2705 on December 18, 2014, 02:31:34 PM
Just a quick question on the Height-weight ratio chart listed.

I realize that this serves as a long term goal, but can I assume that this is for "natural" athletes?


Yes, natural.

Check out this calculator:
[url]http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html[/url] ([url]http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html[/url])

The heights-weights shouldn't be too far off. I plugged in 13% fat and mine was right on.


Thanks Robert, that's what I thought .
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Petarosus18 on June 03, 2015, 02:09:42 AM
Hello,
I remember I was reading old book from Boris, and he mentioned hardcore pyramid performed by Alexey Sivokon reaching 90% intensity and 120 lifts. He said that was the most extreme pyramid he prescribed. What exactly it looked like? Thanks
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Bankmeister on October 22, 2015, 03:24:23 PM
How many percent of the total lifts is usually spent in each intensity zone?

50-60%?
(60)-70%?
(70)-80%?
(80)-90%?
(90)+-?


Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: RussianBear on October 22, 2015, 06:16:51 PM
How many percent of the total lifts is usually spent in each intensity zone?

50-60%?
(60)-70%?
(70)-80%?
(80)-90%?
(90)+-?
Hallo there!

I think this is varying from session to session - but with the average intensity being around 70 ish % as prescribed in the first post of the thread. I think that the average intensity is whats matters and not the percentage.

But usually it looks like (for me, an example)
5x50%
4x60%
3x2x70%
2x5x80%

Avg int.: 68.4%

This implies that 20% of my work-sets are at 50, 16% at 60%, 25% in the range of 70% and the rest (40%) at higher intensities.

Changing it to:
5x50% = 16%
4x60% = 14 %
3x2x70% = 20%
3x5x80% = 50%

Avg int.: 70.3%

You can continue changing the approach...

/RB
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Bankmeister on October 22, 2015, 11:11:08 PM
Thanks!

Maybe my question was a little vague. I meant over a longer period like say 1 month or even a year. As you can see from the examples in the original post and your examples that the average intensity could land around 70% from a big range of possibilities. In weightlifting you could find some good statistics of how much they they spent i each zone.

For example in the book "Managing the training of weightlifters" the loads in the snatch are distributed like this:

Up to 55%: 0,83%
55%: 0,0%
60%: 4,08%
65%: 6,19%
70%: 11,7%
75%: 11,7%
80%: 14,5%
85%: 22,9%
90%: 16,7%
95%: 8,9%
100%: 2,5%

These were the loads for a pre-comp month cycle with data from 780 cases.

So it's something like this I'm asking for which is much more detailed. The user Sheiko37 had a good post regarding this:
I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM      Reps      Sets
90      1      5
60      10    3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: RussianBear on October 23, 2015, 10:15:04 AM
Thanks!

Maybe my question was a little vague. I meant over a longer period like say 1 month or even a year. As you can see from the examples in the original post and your examples that the average intensity could land around 70% from a big range of possibilities. In weightlifting you could find some good statistics of how much they they spent i each zone.

For example in the book "Managing the training of weightlifters" the loads in the snatch are distributed like this:

Up to 55%: 0,83%
55%: 0,0%
60%: 4,08%
65%: 6,19%
70%: 11,7%
75%: 11,7%
80%: 14,5%
85%: 22,9%
90%: 16,7%
95%: 8,9%
100%: 2,5%

These were the loads for a pre-comp month cycle with data from 780 cases.

So it's something like this I'm asking for which is much more detailed. The user Sheiko37 had a good post regarding this:
I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM      Reps      Sets
90      1      5
60      10    3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.

I don't think your question was vague but I unfortunately believe that Boris himselfs needs to answer that. As pointed out we need a couple of cases (a lot, as in the example) to be sure.

May I ask why you are interested?

Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Bankmeister on October 23, 2015, 11:22:26 AM
Thanks!

Maybe my question was a little vague. I meant over a longer period like say 1 month or even a year. As you can see from the examples in the original post and your examples that the average intensity could land around 70% from a big range of possibilities. In weightlifting you could find some good statistics of how much they they spent i each zone.

For example in the book "Managing the training of weightlifters" the loads in the snatch are distributed like this:

Up to 55%: 0,83%
55%: 0,0%
60%: 4,08%
65%: 6,19%
70%: 11,7%
75%: 11,7%
80%: 14,5%
85%: 22,9%
90%: 16,7%
95%: 8,9%
100%: 2,5%

These were the loads for a pre-comp month cycle with data from 780 cases.

So it's something like this I'm asking for which is much more detailed. The user Sheiko37 had a good post regarding this:
I want to understand this better, I feel like average intensity would be the result of well organised training and not the goal. If for example the first day of #37 (over 80kg) squat average intensity is 65%, alternatively I could do the format below.

%RM      Reps      Sets
90      1      5
60      10    3

The average intensity is about the same but clearly it's a different workout and poorly structured.

You could do however many sets and reps you like in the 80-90% range which would blow out your average intensity, but then you could just include a low of intensity sets to offset that and bring the average back to 69.5-72%, surely more is considered when creating the set and rep scheme for a workout.

I don't think your question was vague but I unfortunately believe that Boris himselfs needs to answer that. As pointed out we need a couple of cases (a lot, as in the example) to be sure.

May I ask why you are interested?

Yes I also think that he might have to answer this himself. But I hoped that maybe someone who has been taught by him or read any of his books might know an answer to this.

I'm interested because this gives me a lot of information about how to distribute my reps during a training cycle. If I only have the total number of reps and the average intensity that doesn't say so much about how the training could/should be structured. It would be really interesting too see how Boris plan the loads compared to the weightlifters and other powerlifters for example. 
Title: Re: General Training Overview - Intensity
Post by: Scodina on February 16, 2017, 01:01:25 PM
Ciao! I'm doing the large load advanced program and I want to add board presses and squat with pause at down. Once a week is ok? how I have to chose loads and number of lifts? Can you write some examples? thank you!